164 comments:

She needs to be placed in a home. Watching her is painful, just like the street people you see laying in their own waste. That the WH press corps (or corpse if you are obama) feels the need to patronize her with a perch to spout her lunacy, is the head scratcher.

She is old enough to say what she feels. The pre-WWII society saw Jews as a trouble some bunch that should be suppressed and discriminated against. She has learned nothing from the Nazi world domination and murder cult. The Baby Boomers at least faced the truth and stopped the damnable anti-semitism. Now we are losing influence and the older forces are raising their heads again with help from the new Arab oil billionaires and their offers of cash that Obama could never turn down. Israel is on its own now, with only the hope that Palin comes into office before the UN/Obama plan to annex the city of Jerusalem has already started their UN planned War to the death.

You will rail against any suspected bit of racism against blacks - and it's always a delusion - but, when you see outright racism against Jews, whether or not the racist should be hanging around the White House is posed as a question.

Helen Thomas is of Lebanese descent. That might explain her bias against Israel - our only ally in the middle east and probably our closet ally in the world. That was until the current president took over.

Gibbsey will be sorry to see her go as her point of view is the line with the Bamster's

Gosh, maybe she's right! The 1,000,000+ Jews who were expelled from Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and North Africa in 1948 and their descendants have a right of return, right? Of course the billions of dollars worth of property they were forced to abandon will be returned to them with interest, right? I mean, these countries were a little backward in 1948, but they're really enlightened now, right?

Her remarks were stone cold anti-semitic. Still, she's very old and of Lebanese descent. I would be interested in hearing a defense of her from any liberal who felt that the Imus firing was too extreme a punishment for a foolish statement.

Hey, she is not, nor has ever been one of us. If you mean narrow minded, bigoted, anti semitic people, she is certainly not one of "ours". For all of you righttards who think that all libtards are like her, think again. Time to hang up your poison pen, Helen.

"Hey, she is not, nor has ever been one of us. If you mean narrow minded, bigoted, anti semitic people, she is certainly not one of "ours". For all of you righttards who think that all libtards are like her, think again. Time to hang up your poison pen, Helen.

Vicki from Pasadena"

Please, the liberal elite pretty much all hold these views. That American Jews for whatever reason will not admit it I will never understand.

I consider this a hateful anti-semetic comment and as a lefty or a human would not defend them, but also would not outright dismiss all her opinions, any more than I would dismiss everything Pat Buchanan says because of his anti-semitic remarks.

I will take a dissenting opinion here. Thomas should be kept on in the press room only to serve as reminder what a sleazy human being she is and how she earned her title as the "dean of the white house press corps."

TRO says: Please, the liberal elite pretty much all hold these views. That American Jews for whatever reason will not admit it I will never understand.

If this is true, it shouldn't be too hard for you to come up with lots of citations/links of examples of members of the "liberal elite" who hold these views. But, I suspect that (a) you won't be able to do so and (b) you aren't very familiar with what views are held by elites of any type (liberal, conservative or otherwise).

And yes, this is anti-semitic drivel, and Helen Thomas should have been put out to pasture long ago. And that lipstick!

It's guilt-by-association whenever either side does it. And it's nonsense.

True enough. But what is important here is what the second-order effects will be. Will Gibbs chastise her? Take away her front-row seat? Kick her out of the press corps? Will Hearst fire her? Excuse me if I doubt that any of this will happen. And when it doesn't, that means the liberal leadership will have assented to her racism, and libs like victoria can say, "Thank god that's over with! Can we just move on now?"

There's a Blair Witch quality to the extreme close up that I find genuinely freakish and disturbing.

Her comment is pretty typical, though. I grew up on the Left in a city dominated by Democrats, and I heard comments like that all the time. Some would suggest moving the Jews to Alaska or the American Southwest, but many would suggest sending the Jews back to wherever they came from.

I really wish that the interviewer had followed up Thomas's plan with the question I always ask:

What about the Jews born in what is now Israel, either before or after the modern nation was established? Where do we send them back to?

Helen Thomas has long been a respected and award winning charter member of the Main Stream Media. To say that she is an outlier and does not reflect the views of the Main Stream Media and the liberal elites is to deny the way they slant the news each and every day and the actual events and comments on this very blog the last few days.

Own it. She is one of yours! She is a pillar of the Main Stream Press liberal establishment! She is one of yours. Gooble, gooble libs!

How long has Thomas been with her current employer? I would take her off the WH press corps, but firing would depend on how long she'd worked for me. If it's 25+ years, I might put someone in a nearly invisible position for those remarks, but it would take a pattern of egregious statements for an outright firing.

Loyalty is a thing worthwhile too, and you don't throw over a longtime colleague for one terrible, unthinking remark. Sometimes people really do misstate their sentiments so that their words do not reflect their true feelings.

The test will be when we see what happens with this. Lots of people have said a lot less and been fired and run out of town. But you can be sure that is not going to happen here.

I hope she gets to keep her job. She has a first amendment right to express her anti-semtic views and represent that portion of the liberal community that feels the same way as she has done so abley for the past fifty years.

I don't understand why you people are upset. We still live in America, right? Where the Constitution protects our right to free speech?

Helen Thomas' opinions about Jews are repugnant, but look we have laws here in the United States to protect the right of the Klu Klux Klan to have the view that black people are inferior.

It's a repugnant view, but our Constitution protects the right to have that view.

Helen Thomas wants a new American Holocaust. She is only saying out loud what Democrat Party insiders whisper behind closed doors and amongst their protectors in the White House Press Corps.

Barack Obama adores Helen Thomas. She sits front row center on his direct orders. They're two peas in the hate pod. Both of them hate Israel. It is why Barack Obama is allowing Iran to construct the nuclear-fired ovens in which they'll burn all the Jews from a safe distance. No Blitzkrieg required ... just send a drone and drop the oven on them where they live.

Helen Thomas should not be fired for her views, she should be interviewed about them. She should be given a podium from which to spew.

That way, everyone can see what Hearst Communications and what the White House Press Corps is really all about. Not one of them will condemn her.

And at the next Presidential Press Conference she'll be right there, front and center, getting the first question. On direct orders from the Jew-hating President of the United States.

"Is her employer the US government? Or Hearst Communications? Because if it's the latter, the First Amendment has nothing to do with this."

The Obama Regime decides who is a member of the White House Press Corps.

You cannot start a newspaper and show up at the White House and demand entry. Obama would deny you entry. You are not permitted to ask him questins.

Helen Thomas, on the other hand, is a government apparachik who sits where she sits and is allowed to ask the regime questions precisely because Barack Obama ordered it to be so. He ordered his staff to have Helen Thomas sit front and center, and to always allow her the first question.

She is just as much a part of the United States government as Barack Obama himself.

And she has a First Amendment right to wish upon Jews a new Holocaust. Just like Barack Obama has that right.

We elected him. If he chooses to allow Iran to build nuclear-fired ovens to be dropped on Jews - drone-delivered Auschwitch's if you will - then we have only ourselves to blame.

The Germans are to blame for electing Adolph Hitler and we are to blame for electing Barack Obama.

"rick said...Helen Thomas is of Lebanese descent. That might explain her bias against Israel - our only ally in the middle east and probably our closet ally in the world. That was until the current president took over."

That likely mirrors sentiments in Beijing about their Special Friend and closest ally, N Korea...and how Chinese obligation to the NORKs is endless and aid and backing must be constantly given lest the Special Friend, surrounded by enemies and globally - folds.To some Chinese, anything N Korea does is something that must be defended at all costs. The Chinese leadership will accept no talk of penalizing the dear friend, or "selling it out to the West and the Jap barbarians".

To understand the Right Wing Christian nutballs and Israel, just think China and the NORKS.

We have the albatross of Israel hung around our necks, the Chinese have the humiliation of another smelly bird that THEY in turn are unable to say no to.

BTW - Obama is hardly the 1st President to put America's interests above Israels or to acknowlege a number of ME allies allied with the West.Eisenhower, JFK, Nixon, Carter, Bush 1, and Clinton all sought a more fair and balanced ME role for the USA.

Right, because so many lefty critics are calling for the destruction of Israel.

That's positively brilliant, garage! I'm thinking this is your Kinsley Moment, because I see and hear leftists calling for the destruction of Israel all the damn time! In the name of snark, you've actually spoken truth! Some of them are clever enough to couch it in terms that don't come right out and say, "Push the goddamned Jews into the sea," but it's not difficult to get their meaning.

To understand the Right Wing Christian nutballs and Israel, just think China and the NORKS

What an absurd analogy. It's even worse than absurd, it's completely wrong.

China supports North Korea because it's worried about a democratic and unified Korea on its border and also about massive refugees fleeing the north if they cut off aid and the entire system collapses.

There is no similarity between the realpolitik driving Beijing's policies towards North Korea and the (mostly) religious and ideological reasons that "Christian nutballs" support Israel.

You're making Helen Thomas sound reasonable and, believe me, that's not a good place to be right about now.

Weird that American Jews vote overwhelmingly and consistently for Democrats year after year. SELF HATE!

Wow, garage! You're on a roll! Self hate is right up there! When your actions contribute to your extinction, then self hate is probably a big part of it. Just ask the Judenrat! Those guys just loved themselves!

But garage is right that that's not the mainstream, liberal or Democratic view.

Beth, I'm not so certain about that. Based on what I've read, anti-semitism seems to be thriving at the same universities that try to shut down right-wing speakers and right-of-center student groups. (Which is to say, the majority of them.)

Coincidence?

I'm not being funny here. Republicans as a party and the religious right as a group have been very supportive of Israel, and what I think I am seeing is a lot of "friend of my enemy is my enemy."

Tyrone - "The 1,000,000+ Jews who were expelled from Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and North Africa in 1948 and their descendants have a right of return, right?"

Ever wonder why if the cause of Zionism is so noble and just, they feel compelled to shovel lies, big lies - at credulous Americans?

1948 - 750,000 Arab Muslims and Christians expelled from Palestine by ethnic cleansing.Late 1948 - Israel refuses UN orders to let them reurn. Late 1948 - A few Arab countrys boot Jews. Others are angry about the Palestinians and the Zionist's attempted seizure of the Dome of the Rock. Zionists agents visit several Arab countries to encourage Jews to make Aliyah (voluntary right of return). Arabs warn there are no buyers of property, they will not accept absentee owners...Zionist agents encourage Jews to leave anyways.

1948-1951 260,000 Jews leave Arab lands. Of that 160,000 are voluntary Aliyah, and 80,000 are "boot-outs".

A far cry from 1,000,000 Special Friends expelled. That is just another oft-told lie widely believed by Americans.80,000.Versus 750,000 Palestinians expelled by Jews.

GMay said...Hey it's Cedarford, he'll spew some unsubstantiated anti-zionist screed, have about 4 people school him, then duck out of the thread.

Slowly but surely the web of Zionist lies is being unspun in America, much as it has been already in the UK, Canada, Australia.Universities now vet the history courses, K-12 textbooks are being rewritten to more closely refect the truth - to eliminate the Zionist lies. And some Arab ones.

Your time for schooling GMay, may be past, but younger people will get a more truthful picture of the ME, now.

They were rather worse than that. They called directly for the ethnic cleansing of the Middle East, and in specifying that she wanted Jews sent to Poland and Germany... I'm sure she knows full well what happened to ninety percent of Germany's and Poland's Jews seventy years ago.

The implication is clear, and it's not as relatively benign as simple bigotry. "All Jews are greedy" and the like is clean compared to such a comment.

Hey Cedarford, the new-wave ultra-right teabagger love for Israel has nothing to do with slanted edumakayshun as they don't read books, they burn them. Their love of a Jewish Holy Land is based on the fulfillment of bible prophesy:

Big Mike, mainstream liberals aren't the audience for post-colonial theory courses at university. The leftists vote might for Democrats when they're not voting for Nader or some other green or socialist or progressive party candidate, and there's certainly a spectrum. I don't want to see that anti-Israel position become mainstream, so I speak against it.

Mike, I get your point about the "enemy of my enemy" stuff, but I think that's the turf of the margins, not the mainstream. And exactly that kind of thinking makes me wary of the right wing's support of Israel on the same grounds.

That's true but I think some of the liberal/left's animosity towards Israel, especially from younger people, emanates from a view of Israel as a white, western power oppressing a brown-skinned Third World people.

That may be more true outside of the US; I certainly think it's the dominant view, as I read it, among European leftists. Plus, good old fashioned anti-Americanism on their part. Israel as a surrogate for America.

What makes Hellen Thomas' comments extra special is they came at a Jewish Heritage Event at the White House.

Then again, my wife and I used to visit nursing homes with our late giant ginger Norweigian Forest cat named Jerry (he was exceedingly gentle, calm and furry, and he weighed about 30 lbs.). One woman liked him and we went back to see her, but she was obviously lapsing from Altheimer's. She did not recognize us.

I asked, "Do you want to see Jerry the Cat?"

She replied, "Jerry Katz? I do not care for Jews!"

Unfortunately, in Helen's case I think her statements reflect how she truly feels.

However, though the original establishment of the State of Israel was done by Ashkenazim, I believe they are long since outnumbered by immigrants from Muslim countries and the former communist countries of Eastern Europe.

That's a development that apparently has passed Helen Thomas by too, as well as most of the respondents on this thread.

Good old Cedarford appears with more ahistorical propaganda. Sure, some Jews had to leave their homes in Arab countries, but there were only a few of them, honest, and most of them left on their own! They weren't forced out at all, just wanted better access to kosher foodstuffs!

There were Jews continually in Palestine from the time of the Roman uprising (when the Temple was destroyed) until bmodern Zionism. The name Palestine, BTW was a Roman name (from Philistine) intended to disinfrantize Jews after the revolt.

What Helen might also ask is what about the Christian Arabs who used to live there? Jews did not drive them out of Palestine? Hamas and Fatah did. They left to Canada, Australia, anywhere other than under Fatah/Hamas rule.

They may be their parents' children, but they're also natives of the nation of Israel. That's where they were born. It's their home.

Even if the world went mad and acted on Thomas's antisemitic fantasy and sent Israel's Jews back to where they came from, the majority of them wouldn't have anywhere to go. They've never been Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, Iraqis, Algerians, or whatever. They've always been Israelis.

The "world" is not going to do anything but talk, and the Jews of Israel are not going anywhere. Nor are the Palestinians. There will be peace in Palestine when they settle the conflict between themselves, and not before.

My point is that the concerns of the Israelis, even the descendents of Ashkenazim, are not nercessarily those of the activist Jews in this country.

This is an easy issue for conservatives, of course. Ignorance, malevolence, and bigotry are all in play. But there's a bigger question:

How did this person get where she is?

She's old, granted, but she speaks effectively and doesn't seem markedly different now than she was a few decades ago except insofar as she acts less inhibited. That's obviously because she used to be a UPI wire-services hack, whereas now she's an opinion hack (in which case, why is is she even in the WH press corps?).

So: we now have clear evidence that she's stupid, malevolent, and bigoted. How many decades has this cascade failure been developing? Who will correct it, and when will that happen?

Well, Cedarford, that's just a plain lie, but exactly what I'd expect from an insane racist bigot like you. In fact, Arab Muslims were ordered by their own Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (big pal of Hitler's) to leave Palestine. No Christians were "expelled". If what you say is true, how can it be that there are Arab Muslim members of the Knesset? That Bethlehem draws hundreds of thousands of Christian pilgrims? I used to ignore you, but you are so full of shit, and so full of hate, that I'm not going to ignore you any more.

@ Garage Weird that American Jews vote overwhelmingly and consistently for Democrats year after year.

Yeah that is weird.

But what is going to be surprising to you apparently, but not to many others, is the number of Jews who have and are having, if I might be so bold, an epiphany about BHO and have been voting and will be voting more conservatively in the next two elections.

The successful doctor son {insert joke} of some Jewish friends told them in 2004 to vote for GWB. He is very active in Republican politics in his very blue city and state.

His aunt and uncle (<-- he also a successful retired Jewish physician {insert another joke}) read the handwriting on the wall and have had very little good to say about Obama. Not sure who they ended up voting for.

Unfortunately, the world has not passed her by: She is, in fact, Back to the Future, incarnate.

In the US, the UK and everywhere on the Continent I know, there has been a rise in outright anti-Semitism amongst 'proper' people. You know, the University-educated, the professional, the trendy, the politically-connected: Our Sort, who wouldn't think of voting Conservative, or at least admitting it.

It used to be that the Left kept up appearances by pretending to be anti-Zionist, but certainly not anti-Semitic. No, not us! We have great solidarity with the Jewish people, who suffered so badly under that right-wing monster, Hitler It's just the rotten, neo-colonialist, Zionist State of Israel we're against!

We also stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the poor Palestinian people, too, who have suffered because of US imperialism and the depredations of its Zionist lackeys.

Et cetera, et cetera.

Well, it's all become such a bother and drain on one's energy in this pinched age to have to keep saying such things. Better to just admit one cannot STAND Jews, with their aggressive ways and ridiculous God (sorry, 'G-d'). They should be sent back straightaway to Poland, Germany, or somewhere Abroad where they all came from in the first place.

It's refreshing to hear the most senior US newspaper correspondent finally dropping all pretence. Can the President of the US be far behind?

All this gives us hope we can look forward to a world that in the end should be, as the the words on the World War II monument in the Austrian village I visited last month declared, 'Judenfrei.'

Plus side: If someone in public life voices these sentiments, it is all to the good that that someone look like Helen Thomas. She is about an effective salesman for anti-semitism as she would be for Avon products.....Think back to the Imus brouhaha. Imus said something stupid and hateful. He apologized profusely. The apology was not accepted and he was fired. It didn't materially hurt him in the long run, but I thought that those who insisted on his firing looked petty and vengeful......Thomas made a statement that was as foolish as it was hateful. I presume that she will apologize. I recommend that the apology be accepted. She has done a fine job of destroying her own reputation. To force her out of the WH press pool would look like piling on. Leave her in, and she will look ineffectual and an embarassment. Force her out, and she looks like a martyr. The lady's fit for embalming, not for burning.

In fact, Arab Muslims were ordered by their own Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (big pal of Hitler's) to leave Palestine

Yes, that's true but Cedarford is partially right (which means he's partially wrong) that some of the exodus of the Palestinians was the result of deliberate policies by Jewish groups to drive them out of the area.

Terror groups like the Irgun along with the Hagannah had deliberate policies of inciting fear against innocent Arabs in order to drive them out.

While it's true today that most of the moral high ground belongs to Israel, it hasn't always been so.

Thus, the tragedy of the situation: both the Jews and Arabs have much to rightly be angry about.

There is a strain of leftism/liberalism which she represents, which is at it's core fundamentally antisemitic. Perhaps it's the reflexive nature of the left to root for the so called underdog that drives a lot of this (even though it's in fact the Jews that are the underdogs), but it's making them get in bed with some truly vicious people. But then again, the left has always gotten in bed with whatever totalitarian regime was in favor at the time. The only one they supposedly are against is the nazis, because their racism was so virulent, yet of course they side with the Muslims who are racist to their core and who, in some cases even aided the nazis during WWII due to the Muslim worlds mutual hatred of all things Jew.The left/liberals who ascribe to this view should be ashamed of itself.But considering the compnay they've kept that will never happen. Better then to have this old hag stay on continuing her antisemitic diatribes, so we can put a face to this antsemitism and throw darts at it (metaphorically that is)

Cedarford, Well we do know the truth about the Middle East now and that is that Jews need not apply as they're not welcome. You can't set foot in Jordan if you are a Jew. Does Israel have such restrictions? And this antisemitism is not simply because of the state of Israel. Many of the Middle east countries that have Shariyah law actually have it in their laws how jews are one step above pigs in terms of dirtiness, and there are rules for how to clean yoursef if you touch a Jew.I'm sick and tired of THE most virulently racist, THE most anti gay anti woman anti liberal values region of the world getting to dictate how badly they feel about minorities being mistreated.Hey, in Israel women can drive and can walk around without covering their faces. In Israel a Christian can prostelytize without the threat of getting his head cut off. Israel treats it's Muslims far better than most Muslim countries treat it's Muslims.One question Cederaford. Considering that Jordan is 75% of historic Palestine AND that from 1948 until the 6 day war West Bank Palestinians were living under Jordanian occupation/rule and didn't say boo about it that Jordan might find some space to house the Palestinians. But NO, it's all about driving the Jews into the sea. Not sharing Palestine, but removing all Jews from it. You see, Cedarford, the Muslims in the ME have trouble sharing.Despite having 99.9% of the land already if you are a christian,jew, kurd or any minority god help you if you try to live not under the Muslim yoke.The Muslim world likes their Jews like South Africa liked their blacks, only the Muslim world treats and treated their jews far worse. As long as the Jews/Christians didn't get uppity and submitted to Muslim rule then the Muslims might deign to treat them like 4th class citizens.Yet we keep hearing from people like Cedarford and those on the left that ISRAEL of all places is an apartheid state. Are you people serious? Israel has to answer for it's "apartheid" but the Middle east doesn't?

I would love to know what Helen means by the word Palestine. Note, she didnt say the West Bank. She said Palestine. And she also wants Jews to go back to Germany, which suggests that she thinks that even in Israel they are in Palestine, which they are occupying. So she ascribes to Hamas's charters completely. I'd be willing to bet that she views Palestine exactly the way it was depicted on the map when Churchill started carving it up and gave 75% of it to Jordan. THat 75% is legitimate of course and is not occupied because it's run by Muslims. Despite the fact that the ruling family is Hashemite, no matter. THey're not Jews. Any questions of the validity of THOSE borders, or the legality of the establishment of the state, or even whether a Hashemite minority should rule a Palestinian majority are IRRELEVANT. IT's only Israel that gets her scorn, and the scorn of those on the left for the most part. Syria has been occupying another country for 20 years. Yeah, whatever. What are we going to do about the Jews. Jews aren't welcome anywhere in the ME. Yeah, whatever, Israel is an apartheid state. Israel may be "occupying" the west bank, but control of the west bank has never been established by anyone so it doesn't belong to anyone until it's negotiated. But yet, to Helen the left and Cedarford it belongs to the Palestinians. Why not the Ottomans? (Lets kick both the Jews and the Palestinians out of the region and give it to the Turks.) They were last in control of the region before they were defeated by the Brits.

THe fact that Jordan annexed the West Bank for 20 years and thus were occupying it? IRRELEVANT and not even worthy of comment. What about the Jews and their apartheid state?One side has negotiated and given up land over and over in an effort to get piece. Has given back land won during wars that were commited against it and one side still has in it's charter the complete destruction of Israel. IRRELEVANT and IMMATERIAL. What about the zionists and the illegal state of Israel? Hamas has an image of Palestine that they adhere to that includes all of Jordan and Israel (in other words historic Palestine). Is that the Palestine Helen wants the Jews to get out of? In other words, its' not the west bank or Gaza, it's Israel that is the issue. She ascribes to Hamas's position 100%.

Beth wrote:"It's quite possible to be critical of flaws in Israel's policies while supporting its right to exist"

Yet it's far more likely for lefties to say things like "I support Israel's right to exist" but also "support and demand the Palestinians right to return" Or "I support the Jews right to live in peace" but am against "Zionist Israels apartheid policies". (Israel will have a tough time living in peace if it's neighbors are constantly using all the land gotten from so called peace efforts to wage war against Israel, which might then necessitate Israel responding by doing things like erecting fences or setting up blockades.)Or for example saying "israel has a right to defend itself" but must be proportional in its response or that any response is a violation of international law. In other words, on arguing points that are sometimes mutlually exclusive or at the very least incompatible. Also, Beth, do you ever wonder why there is SO much anger towards Israel, and yet SO little anger directed towards the ME in general? I understand that the ME countries outnumber Israel 20 to 1 in the UN and use their voice solely to attack Israel (again, it is ISrael that is in fact the underdog here) while ignoring their own shameful record on human rights and occupation and intolerance. But don't you think the left does itself a disservice by directing so much of it's anger one way? I mentioned this group before, but theres a group called Queers for Palestine. These are gays who are in solidarity with Palestinians. Palestiians that would hang them for their sexual persuasion. The disconnect at a certain point becomes obscene.You can see this also with the lefts constant charicature of the US as a warmongering imperialist power that killed the Indians and had slaves.As if America is unique in any of this. If, though you want to talk about modern day slavery of Africans, look to the Sudan. That's the far more current and important discussion to have. Yet the left has built up these victimization classes that portray men or the US or Israel as the great bogeyman, and lefties attend colleges, drink up all their Chomsky and then regurgitate it as if it's original or at all realistic. Without even realizing it (or perhaps realizing it) the left is basically arguing socialism under the guise of social justice and is elevating absolute dictatorships in their zeal to tear down their own country. You know it's true.That's the left these days (and in fact very little has changed since the 60's). Find a dictatorship and the left will be there to defend it or send human shields to prevent us from dealing with it. Or will egg on leaders who share their loathing of this country while they stand in the UN and speak about how the devil was just there (referring of course to Chavez and Bush).The left shoud be judged by the company it keeps. It's talk about human rights is a total sham. They're for it unless it's hard. Then they'll be the first ones bashing those who actually fight for said principles.

This is not a complicated issue. There is not one micron of daylight between "Blacks should get the hell out of America and go back to Africa" and "Jews should get the hell out of Palestine and go back to Poland."

Dear Ms. Thomas, I read on numerous Web sites the remarks attributed to you (and I did not see any denial) that we, the Jews must “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go home” to Germany or Poland. I am convinced that you are aware of the events which took place during the years 1939-1945 but, to be certain, I think it appropriate to tell you a little about my parents and their families.

My mother was sent to Palestine from Germany in 1933 with the rise of the Nazis to power by her farseeing parents. The British blockade, which prevented Jews fleeing the Nazi horrors from entering, made it difficult for her and only the pretext of coming on a tourist visit enabled her to enter and remain alive. Her older sister, Sarah, her husband and three children aged 12, 10 and seven did not succeed in finding a way of coming to Palestine and were sent by the Nazis to Poland and from there, their journey to the Auschwitz gas chambers, was short.I understand that it is there that you wish to send me.

**********

MORAL OF THE STORY, A LA KENT: "Hateful, bigoted and a dead ringer for Burgess Meredith is no way to go through life, Helen."

Great. Another "victory" for free speech. If she said the exact same thing (or worse) about the Palestinians there would be no controversy at all and her job would be safe. Instead her career is destroyed. When are people going to wake up and smell the hypocrisy ?

rick said..."Israel - our only ally in the middle east and probably our closet ally in the world."

As a British person living in Canada I am really offended by your remarks. I come from and live in countries that have fought beside yours in Iraq and Afghanistan and are happy to be America's ally without needing to be paid billions in aid each year.Watch your words ... that at least should be a lesson from Ms Thomas.But thanks, at least I know what you think of us.

Hey Renaldo, "free speech" means you can say what you want; it does NOT mean you're free from the private consequences of your speech. If, for example, I went around my workplace saying "f___k" "f___k" "f____k", I'd be fired. See, I have the freedom to say it, but not the freedom from private consequences.

We ARE, by and large, free from any kind of GOVERNMENTAL sanction for what we say (not even the 1st amendment is absolute; if I yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater that's a crime, and so is advocating the violent overthrow of the US government).

But the 1st amendment guarantees no protection whatsoever from consequences incurred from other private entities, citizens or companies or what have you.

And she'd have been gone FASTER if she'd said that about the murdreous Islamic scum you (and the fork-tongued Obama White House) love so much.

Well Gary, you might be offended, but Israel IS a more steadfast ally than even the UK, a country I sure you I hold in the highest regard (and I was hideously embarrassed for us all here in the US and ashamed when our ill-bred, low-class President threw the gift of that bust of Winston Churchill back in your faces, and when gifts were exchanged on the occasion of his inauguration, Great Britain sent the Office of the President well-thought-out, priceless nonesuches, and HE sent back a lousy CD set that didn't even work).

Israel's people bear the people of the United States genuine affection, and it has nothing to do with money--and as an American who is also Jewish, I find THAT remark highly offensive, and it also tells me all I need to know about YOU.

Rick/MeApparently the "affection" that the Israel holds for the USA is what makes it the USA's closest ally (not the billions the US sends each year).Well great, as a Gulf war widow and a member of a country that has stood beside yours in every recent conflict I will remember next time to tell my fellow Brits not to show up because "affection" is all it takes.Israel despite a large and highly trained military cannot make that claim. Until there is peace in the Middle East the relationship with Israel is an expensive burden for the USA, affection notwithstanding.

Rick: "Israel - our only ally in the middle east and probably our closet ally in the world."

@Nick:Note that Rick said "probably", and probably (I suspect) holds the UK (and perhaps Canada and some others) as close contenders for the title "closest".

Alliance can mean different things, and be achieved my different means. An ally who is bribed to be an ally may, for some given objective, may be closer, in some given sense of closer, than an historic ally.

A first stab at analysis: "Close" can be used in a moral sense, especially with a shared history of fighting and dying side by side. It is not clear to me that Israel would send its young men and women to die for the US as (eg) Canadians did in Dieppe. This closeness cannot be purchased.

But "Close" can be used in a geo-political sense, to indicate how alligned and flexible two nations are regarding their policies (especially regional policies) and their implementation. This can be purchased.

I'm not sure what Nick intended (and we all dash off our thoughts rather quickly here--at least I do), but this makes me question whether taking offense at what he wrote is an entirely appropriate response.

The woman has had an incredible career and I'm not going to let this last incident erase that. She's spent a LOT of time in rooms trying to get the truth out of a bunch of politicians, and that can not be easy. Her comments about Israel clearly come from a place of frustration after dealing with this issue for so long and seeing first hand how it's dealt with. Put a little perspective on it and give her a little respect for all she's done.